A tale of McCain & "A female lobbyist"

[jneale]

I love politics:

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin)


WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.


A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, in his offices and aboard a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s clients, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement......

[frizgolf]

Not too shabby.
I'd hit it.

[jneale]

there does seem to be a pattern:

"A female lobbyist:"

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/20/us/20mccain-190a.jpg

the wife:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/31/convention.wrap/story.cindy.mccain.jpg

[ICONOCLAST420]

What else would you expect from a guy who dumps his wife for a woman 17 years younger than he is.

[the happy prole]

It may very well be true that McCain was getting some from this lobbyist. It certainly wouldn't surprise anyone. But it's also true that you can take any issue any politician has ever voted for and trace that issue back to some hot female lobbyist.

If you want to lobby Congress, you will employ a hot chick in some capacity unless you want to lose every issue. If you ever get a chance to visit Congress, just walk the halls of any Congressional building and you'll find it full of women in tight attire.

It's actually pretty amusing. Because these are women that you or I might not even find that attractive, but rather your typical stereotypical exotic Asians, blonde chicks with big racks, Southern women and shit like that. Basically women who look good in too-tight business suits and short business skirts.

[patio]

Text of statement:



“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”

Well I'm sick and tired of being told i'm sick and tired...
monty python ; )

[DudeMan]

this article is completely retarded. if they have proof he was having an affair, then they can print it. if they have proof he was using influence inappropriately on her behalf, they can print it. but they don't have proof of either of those things, so instead they publish some bullshit innuendo laden piece of shite.

the funny thing is that the times did itself a huge dis-service with this story. now they will rightfully have their ass handed to them for printing such shite and then all future tough exposes will not be believed.

of course there's a possibility they DO have something and put this out there as bait to get a denial and then follow it up with proof to the contrary. but i'm pretty sure it's just shitty journalism.

[miami2112]

... and he's already issued a response...

This could get interesting. Is it relevant? Not really, but his opponents will have a ball with it I'm sure.

(ETA: I don't like him at all, so I must admit I'm smiling a bit inside. Like after a good scotch)

Text of statement:

“It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”

did i miss something, or did he not deny any of the alleged activity took place?

[frizgolf]

did i miss something, or did he not deny any of the alleged activity took place?

Why should he?

[markalot]

I want to go on the record as saying I'm not tired of political sex scandals.

Ok,

The Times, in typical Times fashion, did not print a balanced story. He provided evidence on how many times he voted against things involving this lobbyist but the Times chose not to include it.

Both the dems and major republicans are trying to discredit McCain so expect a lot of this, and expect a lot of this in the NYT. They can't resist a juicy story, no matter how wrong it is, and they'll be bombarded with them.

I think conservatives want a dem to win the White House this round and are already planning for the election in 2012.

[the_birds]

The Times, in typical Times fashion, did not print a balanced story. He provided evidence on how many times he voted against things involving this lobbyist but the Times chose not to include it.

I just have to ask you, WTF are you reading?

Because the NYTimes story is very fair. It doesn't portray McCain in a poor light AT ALL. It just says his people jumped all over this to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The only thing it said was that McCain wrote letter on behalf of one of this woman's clients. Something I'm sure he does for loads of people, just like any other Senator.

You're crazy, or you have reading comprehension problems if you think there is anything derogatory in this story AT ALL. In fact, I bet you McCain's people went above and beyond to cooperate with this story, because it portrays McCain in a FAVORABLE light.

[markalot]

I'm not sure how an article about an inappropriate relationship could be considered favorable.

As his relationship with a female lobbyist underscores, John McCain’s confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potential conflicts of interest.

By favorable do you mean how they played up his integrity so they could slam dunk the allegations?

Oh, and was your previous post a personal attack? We're kind of sensitive to personal attacks you know. I don't think I'm crazy, but then if I am crazy I'm probably a bad person to judge. :rolleyes:

[the happy prole]

Yeah, I don't get it either.

The point of the story is that John McCain was advised to stay away from this woman because of an APPEARANCE of impropriety. Not that he actually did anything inappropriate. And John McCain told his advisers, "Forget it. I know I'm an honest dude and so I'm not going to change anything and if people try to sling mud, it won't work."

So it's supposed to be more of an insight into his character. Like the_birds said, I think you could read that story and easily come away admiring McCain. Or you might worry that whatever McCain's personal ethics are, appearances are a big deal in politics so this is a potential flaw that could get him in trouble during the race or after he is President.

[Breeze]

The Times, in typical Times fashion, did not print a balanced story. He provided evidence on how many times he voted against things involving this lobbyist but the Times chose not to include it.

By what rule is the Times (or any other paper) bound to print all of the information provided by a story's subject?

[Breeze]

Or you might worry that whatever McCain's personal ethics are, appearances are a big deal in politics so this is a potential flaw that could get him in trouble during the race or after he is President.
Appearances are an especially big deal in politics when you paint yourself as an ethics reformer, and then appear to act in a way that calls your reputation into question.

[the_birds]

Oh, and was your previous post a personal attack? We're kind of sensitive to personal attacks you know. I don't think I'm crazy, but then if I am crazy I'm probably a bad person to judge.

Well, I didn't recommending murdering you in a Fast Food restaurant ;)

In my assertion, I did say that most fulcrum of words...."if"

[Docta]

a reference to adultery of a husband, published by the clinton supporting new york times, a desperate clinton campaign

i smell hillary's fingerprints on this one

it's a stupid story, and i don't like it even if it will help defeat the old man

[the_birds]

This is the perfect opportunity for McCain to bash the NYTimes and reassert his Conservative cred and bash the liberals.

McCain's up there like a home run derby for his supporters, with the NY Times as his baseball. Its political campaigning 101.

[frizgolf]

It could backfire if they're trying to bring McCain down a notch. They don't wanna make the ol' man out to look like a stud.

[the happy prole]

Nah. The problem with media conspiracy theories is that newspapers care a shit-ton more about selling papers than they do who wins a Presidential race.

They'll take a sly dig at someone here or there, but they aren't going to just outright manufacture a story or run a smear campaign. Just look at how much coverage that story is getting. If they had similar shit on Hillary they would have printed that, too. Obama would be even better. NYT or any paper would spooge in their pants if they found they were the first with some dirt on Obama.

The only media outlet where this doesn't apply is probably FOX "news." But I think most of us would agree that people don't watch FOX is not news but rather a series of crappy op/ed pieces about how liberals suck.

[Breeze]

If this is in fact a hatchet job by the NYT, then it's nothing but par for the course. They've been doing much the same thing in the past two presidential elections.

Take, for example, the headline and lead paragraph from this 2004 news article (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00E6DC1E3EF933A05756C0A9629C8B 63) about John Kerry's campaign:
Oh, Did He Mention That He's a Vet?

By JODI WILGOREN
Published: May 30, 2004

DURING a major speech in Seattle on Thursday, it was hardly surprising that Senator John Kerry referred to what he had learned in the Navy. Not because the speech was kicking off an 11-day focus on national security, but because Mr. Kerry, who commanded Swift boats on the Mekong River, mentions his military service every day, practically any time he speaks at any length.

And that's a news piece--not a column.

One wonders if McCain's mentions of military service will be subject to similar scrutiny.

[Docta]

Nah. The problem with media conspiracy theories is that newspapers care a shit-ton more about selling papers than they do who wins a Presidential race.

They'll take a sly dig at someone here or there, but they aren't going to just outright manufacture a story or run a smear campaign. Just look at how much coverage that story is getting. If they had similar shit on Hillary they would have printed that, too. Obama would be even better. NYT or any paper would spooge in their pants if they found they were the first with some dirt on Obama.

The only media outlet where this doesn't apply is probably FOX "news." But I think most of us would agree that people don't watch FOX is not news but rather a series of crappy op/ed pieces about how liberals suck.

exactly what john stewart said last night on larry king

[the happy prole]

exactly what john stewart said last night on larry king

Really? It must be because Jon Stewart is an exceptionally smart man who received a first-rate college education.

[markalot]

The NYT didn't manufacture this piece, they just worded it to sell.

After careful investigation of numerous allegations and denials the NYT has decided that John McCain did nothing wrong.


Just not as exciting, but in a way they did manufacture an opinion. Gee, I wonder if McCain has bad judgment ... hmmm, can I find anything that might show he does ... oh here's some stuff, here's some more stuff.

Now it seems to me if they are going to that length then they really should present evidence that shows how they might be wrong.

[the_birds]

If this is in fact a hatchet job by the NYT, then it's nothing but par for the course. They've been doing much the same thing in the past two presidential elections.

One wonders if McCain's mentions of military service will be subject to similar scrutiny.

A hatchet job? What, for stating the obvious?

Kerry mentioning that he was a war veteran at every turn was one of his political ploys? How is that a hatchet job, when its the plain and simple truth?

Hopefully, you are being facetious. Or I might have to 'personally attack' you! :D

[seafoamgreen]

Has anyone stopped to think that McCain's campaign could very well have planted this story to begin with? You take something somewhat (arguably) sordid, and bury it in the media buildup to the democratic primaries on March 4th. What would happen if a story liked this dropped in October, when it would have much more of an impact on both paper sales and the election?

[the happy prole]

Now it seems to me if they are going to that length then they really should present evidence that shows how they might be wrong.

The problem is they aren't wrong. The article is about how McCain's staffers were worried that people would think he was having an affair with a lobbyist, and told him to distance himself. He refused. Supposedly, this gives us insight into his character which makes it newsworthy.

And all of that happened. The source for the information are the member of McCain's inner circle themselves. There's nothing in the story that's false, and there's no statement made that accuses McCain of actually having an affair or acting improperly.

I'm not defending the New York Times here, I'm just saying they have covered their asses. If you want to draw the conclusion that McCain had an affair or that he is improperly influenced by lobbyists, you didn't get it from them.

[markalot]

I understand what you're saying, but imagine if people around you thought something and acted on it, but were wrong. Totally wrong. Is it newsworthy to publish their thoughts and deliberations on that and frame it in such a way that questions your judgment?

[berzerker]

I understand what you're saying, but imagine if people around you thought something and acted on it, but were wrong. Totally wrong. Is it newsworthy to publish their thoughts and deliberations on that and frame it in such a way that questions your judgment?

Yeah - we could end up in a war in Iraq.

[Breeze]

A hatchet job? What, for stating the obvious?

Kerry mentioning that he was a war veteran at every turn was one of his political ploys? How is that a hatchet job, when its the plain and simple truth?

Hopefully, you are being facetious. Or I might have to 'personally attack' you! :D

It's an opinion piece couched as news. I didn't say the premise was false; it's the tone and manner of presentation that are questionable.

[the happy prole]

I think the key here is that it's not newsworthy.

For every vote a senator makes, there is a lobbying group that feted him, tossed him so cash, and made sure a hot chick was involved somewhere. The lobbyists get paid to do that, and there's nothing illegal about trying to change minds with a pretty face and a healthy campaign donation.

And for every vote, the senator's advisers are aware of how they were lobbied and concerned with how that looks. That's what they get paid to do. I'm sure that a similar scene has played out in Obama's camp.

Same thing with the Kerry piece. There's nothing in there that isn't completely obvious, so why are you running it unless you want to sneak some opinion in there or hope that someone draws an inference?

I guess I'm just saying that it's not a smear campaign directed against McCain. And I think we'd agree it makes no sense for NYT to smear Kerry in a close election against Bush.

You can't print outright lies, but you need to sell papers. So the best the NYT is try to write nothing news articles with some subtle (or not-so-subtle) inferences. Toss some seeds out there and hope a controversy arises. I think it's wrong, so we agree on that. But the nature of publishing is such that you can't entirely remove the motivation.

If you use your brain when you read that story, you quickly realize "Hey, they don't really have anything here." I'm not excusing the NYT, but they are simply taking advantage of the fact that people are stupid. The best hope we have is that people learn to read, and then they won't fall for cheap tricks, and then the newspaper will have to stop using them.

[berzerker]

Do people still get news from newspapers anymore? I mean, by the time it's printed, it's already happened...

[twentyshots]

first of all...if she is what qualifies as a hot lobbyist then we are all in trouble and no young ambitious man will ever want to be president.
secondly, it is floating out there now that the NYT launched this story because the new republic was sitting on their own story about the NYT's withholding this information. who knows if that is true, but all in all i would agree with those who do not view this as particularly damning and say "so what"?

[Breeze]

Do people still get news from newspapers anymore? I mean, by the time it's printed, it's already happened...

The bloggers have to get their info somewhere...

[Buzzstein]

So basically it's just a stupid unnewsworthy article about nothing that's designed to sell newspapers. Got it.

[Breeze]

So basically it's just a stupid unnewsworthy article about nothing that's designed to sell newspapers. Got it.

This tactic works for TV and web news as well. Welcome to journalism.

[DudeMan]

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24

this is an interesting piece that was just published in the new republic.

apparently, one of the reasons the times published this when they did was that they got wind of the fact that TNR was writing a meta-story about why the times was investigating this but hadn't yet published. not exactly an inspiring reason to publish an article... sounds that one reason they 'went for it' with a half-baked, inconclusive piece was to avoid being embarrassed by the TNR piece.

[twentyshots]

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24

this is an interesting piece that was just published in the new republic.

apparently, one of the reasons the times published this when they did was that they got wind of the fact that TNR was writing a meta-story about why the times was investigating this but hadn't yet published. not exactly an inspiring reason to publish an article... sounds that one reason they 'went for it' with a half-baked, inconclusive piece was to avoid being embarrassed by the TNR piece.

well whaddya know! makes it even more of a 'so what' story now.
first of all...if she is what qualifies as a hot lobbyist then we are all in trouble and no young ambitious man will ever want to be president.
secondly, it is floating out there now that the NYT launched this story because the new republic was sitting on their own story about the NYT's withholding this information. who knows if that is true, but all in all i would agree with those who do not view this as particularly damning and say "so what"?

[markalot]

From the article:

Beyond its revelations, however, what's most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain's former staffers to justify the piece--both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady. The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves--the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain's aides that the Senator shouldn't be seen in public with Iseman--and departs from the Times' usual authoritative voice. At one point, the piece suggestively states: "In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, 'Why is she always around?'" In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair.

What happened? The publication of the article capped three months of intense internal deliberations at the Times over whether to publish the negative piece and its most explosive charge about the affair. It pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn't. It likely cost the paper one investigative reporter, who decided to leave in frustration. And the Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable. .......


Wow, talk about a self inflicted wound. Still, though I despise it, if it's true ...

[the happy prole]

Don't you kinda have to ask yourself how lame the New Republic is as well? An editor and reporter disagree about whether to run a story. Shocker of the century!

I mean, they were going to run a story about the New York Times not running a story. That's pretty stupid.

What's even lamer is that when they New York Times ran the story, they *still* ran their piece. Only now it's a story on how the New York Times ran a story?

It takes reporting on nothing to a whole new level.

[twentyshots]

What's even lamer is that when they New York Times ran the story, they *still* ran their piece. Only now it's a story on how the New York Times ran a story?

It takes reporting on nothing to a whole new level.

yeah. buzz may have put it best....

So basically it's just a stupid unnewsworthy article about nothing that's designed to sell newspapers. Got it.

[The Ugly Thief]

if I find out that he was screwing this lady then I might just have to vote for him. I've been going on the assumption that he probably was too old to even think of sex.

v

[rcc94]

Really? It must be because Jon Stewart is an exceptionally smart man who received a first-rate college education.
Good one. :D

[Shlep]

It just occurred to me that the fact that this story is now surfacing means that the 2008 Presidential election season is now officially in full swing. Now I'm depressed.

Anyone else hear anything about the guy claiming he bought Obama some Bolivian marching powder and then blew him in the back of the limo he was hired to drive for him?

[jneale]

Anyone else hear anything about the guy claiming he bought Obama some Bolivian marching powder and then blew him in the back of the limo he was hired to drive for him?

no, but I did hear some odd stuff about the church he attends....

[Artpunchehorse]

If this is true, he has my vote. Plus, for everything he has been through in his life I think he gets a pass.

[seafoamgreen]

It just occurred to me that the fact that this story is now surfacing means that the 2008 Presidential election season is now officially in full swing. Now I'm depressed.

Anyone else hear anything about the guy claiming he bought Obama some Bolivian marching powder and then blew him in the back of the limo he was hired to drive for him?

Nope, but politico.com is running a story about how he one had dinner at Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn's house. This should be fun.

[markalot]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html?hpid=topnews

A History of Sex and Journalism

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 25, 2008; 8:51 AM

When Gennifer Flowers held a news conference in 1992 to announce that she had carried on an affair with Bill Clinton, the New York Times devoted one paragraph of a news story to her charges.

"I am ashamed for my profession," Max Frankel, then the paper's editor, said afterward. "We don't want to report on the candidates' sex lives."

Last week, when the Times quoted unnamed former associates of John McCain as saying they believed, in 1999, that he had an extramarital relationship with Washington lobbyist Vicki Iseman, a huge controversy erupted. This time, though, it was the Times that was harshly criticized.

To be sure, the piece included significant details about whether the Arizona senator had done legislative favors for Iseman's clients. And unlike the tabloid Star, which paid Flowers a six-figure sum, the Times has won dozens of Pulitzers for aggressive journalism. But with McCain and Iseman both denying an inappropriate relationship, a rough consensus is emerging among journalists that the Times story was fatally flawed.

Leave aside the uninformed charges that the story was politically timed. Forget for a moment that the key sources were granted anonymity. What, in the end, did the paper have? "Disillusioned" former McCain aides who say they were worried that their boss appeared too close to a lobbyist and tried to shoo her away. Details about letters to federal regulators that were mostly old news. And, of course, the suggestion of sex, the rocket fuel that boosted the story into the media stratosphere.

In a marked change since the Flowers era, the mere fact that a news organization is pursuing a scandal routinely leaks out. Matt Drudge became famous for reporting in 1998 that Newsweek had spiked a story about a special prosecutor investigating President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. It was hardly surprising when Drudge's gossip site reported in December that Times staffers were pursuing the McCain story. Dissatisfied journalists tend to be talkative.

Twenty-one years after Miami Herald reporters staked out a townhouse where Gary Hart was having a rendezvous with Donna Rice, news organizations are still uncomfortable with stories about sex and political figures. There is, still, considerable agonizing over such pieces: Do we have enough evidence? How long ago did it happen? Is it relevant to the official's performance or just titillation disguised as serious journalism?

Several controversies have involved The Post. In 1992, the paper drew criticism for waiting until three weeks after then-Sen. Bob Packwood was reelected to report that 10 women had accused him of sexual harassment; editors said the story hadn't been ready earlier. (The Oregonian said it should have pursued the allegations against its home-state senator more aggressively, especially since Packwood had kissed one of its reporters.)

In 1994, The Post spent three months investigating Paula Jones's charge that Clinton, while Arkansas governor, had asked her for oral sex in a hotel room. Conservative critics accused the paper of sitting on the story. The Post ran a front-page piece after Jones sued Clinton (a move that ultimately led to his impeachment after he dissembled before a grand jury about his relationship with Lewinsky).

Two years later, both The Post and Time magazine decided against running pieces documenting that Bob Dole, then the GOP presidential nominee, had had an affair that began in 1968, while he was married to his first wife. Post Editor Leonard Downie Jr. said later that he based his decision on the fact that the matter did not involve Dole's public office and was nearly three decades old. The National Enquirer broke the story shortly before Election Day.

In early 1999, NBC came under tremendous pressure for holding, for more than a month, Lisa Myers's interview with Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas woman who charged that Clinton had sexually assaulted her in 1978. Clinton denied the allegation, and while The Post and the Wall Street Journal editorial page had reported Broaddrick's account, a television interview would have been explosive, as the Senate was preparing to vote on Clinton's impeachment. NBC executives, who ran the story after Clinton's acquittal, said the network needed more time to investigate.

Liberal anger over the Lewinsky probe sparked numerous efforts at revenge against Republican congressmen, such as Salon's report that Henry Hyde had had an affair 30 years earlier, and Hustler magazine's investigation of extramarital activities involving Bob Livingston, who resigned as he was about to become House speaker.

Tabloid outfits sometimes act as a conduit in bringing such stories to light. The National Enquirer reported in 2001 that the Rev. Jesse Jackson had fathered a child out of wedlock with a staffer in his Rainbow Coalition; that became big news when Jackson confirmed it. And it was a Hustler reporter who last year forced Louisiana Sen. David Vitter to admit having contacted a Washington escort service. (For that matter, years after the Star story, Clinton admitted to a sexual encounter with Flowers.)

Journalistic caution is easy to second-guess. In 2006, after the Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times declined to publish a suggestive e-mail from then-congressman Mark Foley to a teenage House page, ABC's Brian Ross put it on his blog -- and gathered so much evidence of sexually explicit messages to other pages that Foley resigned the next day. The Idaho Statesman, which spent eight months investigating allegations that Sen. Larry Craig had engaged in gay sexual encounters, decided last year not to publish a story, in part because the sources would not be identified. The Statesman ran its piece after Roll Call reported that Craig had pleaded guilty in a police sting operation in an airport bathroom. Craig has been fighting to withdraw the plea.

On rare occasions the decision is clear-cut. The Detroit Free Press last month published explicit text messages ("Did you miss me sexually?") between Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and his chief of staff. The steamy stuff happened to contradict the couple's sworn denials in a lawsuit that they had had an affair.

The hardest thing in journalism is to spend months on a story and then admit you haven't got the goods. There is, instead, a tendency to dress the thing up with fine writing and larger themes in an effort to demonstrate that it's not just about sex, when of course that is the only element most readers -- and the rest of the media -- will focus on.

Indeed, Times ombudsman Clark Hoyt wrote yesterday that "if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affairs, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than the Times was able to provide."

Many conservative commentators who cheered on every media revelation about Clinton's dalliances denounced the McCain story. Of course, it turned out that Clinton did have sex with that woman, and of course McCain scored political points by denouncing a newspaper reviled on the right. But many journalists with no ideological ax to grind have also criticized the piece, and even most liberal bloggers haven't defended it. And The Washington Post, which ran a story on McCain and Iseman the same day that focused on lobbying but said nothing about romance, largely escaped the backlash.

In online comments Friday, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller seemed taken aback by "the volume of the reaction" and "by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot. And, frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story."

That's the problem with journalists making unconfirmed charges about an affair alleged to have taken place nearly a decade earlier. The larger point, if there is one, gets lost.

...

[markalot]

McCain and the Times: The Real Questions

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022501089.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

By Michael Kinsley
Monday, February 25, 2008; 11:50 AM

I have come under some criticism for my criticism of the New York Times for its criticism of Sen. John McCain. Many readers of last week's New York Times article about McCain, including me, read that article as suggesting that Sen. McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago. The Times, however, has made clear that its story was not about an affair with a lobbyist. Its story was about the possibility that eight years ago, aides to McCain had held meetings with McCain to warn him about the appearance that he might be having an affair with the lobbyist.

This is obviously a much more important question. To be absolutely clear: the Times itself was not suggesting that there had been an affair, or even that there had been the appearance of an affair. The Times was reporting that there was a time eight years ago when some people felt there might be the appearance of an affair, although others, apparently including Sen. McCain himself, apparently felt that there was no such appearance.

Similarly, I am not accusing the New York Times of screwing up again by publishing an insufficiently sourced article then defending itself with a preposterous assertion that it wasn't trying to imply what it obviously was trying to imply. I am merely reporting that some people worry that other people might be concerned that the New York Times has created the appearance of screwing up once again.

What I wrote was that some people had expressed concern that the Times article might have created the appearance of charging that McCain had had an affair. My critics have charged that I was charging the Times with charging McCain with having had an affair. Such a charge would be unfair to the New York Times, since the Times article, if you read it carefully (very carefully), does not make any charge against McCain except that people in a meeting eight years ago had suggested that other people eight years ago might reach a conclusion -- about which the Times expressed no view whatsoever -- that McCain was having an affair.

I have no evidence to suggest that the New York Times suggested with no evidence that Sen. McCain was having an affair. I was merely pointing out that by running an article that goes on at great length about some meeting eight years ago, and that seems to have no point except to imply that Sen. McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist, the newspaper may have created for some people (not me, of course) an appearance of suggesting that Sen. McCain had enjoyed an affair with a lobbyist.

Rejecting all opportunities to fudge, McCain's campaign has called the story "phony" and the candidate himself has said bluntly that he did not have any such affair. But that is not the question. The question is whether he has created the possibility of an appearance of having such an affair. After all, McCain knows how to make things clear when he wants to.

For example, as the Times reports (a bit late), on Friday, Dec. 10, 1999, McCain wrote a letter to the chairman of the FCC demanding action on two Pittsburgh television licenses of interest to his friend and contributor, Bud Paxson. Paxson was also a client of the lobbyist with whom McCain may have created the possibility of an appearance of having an affair that he wasn't having. In this letter, McCain demanded -- a bit imperiously for a man who wasn't having an affair with a lobbyist -- that "each member of the commission" write to him "no later than the close of business on Tuesday, December 14, 1999, whether you have already acted upon these applications¿" and if not, "whether you will, or will not, be prepared to act" by Dec. 15. And he wanted these answers in writing. He would accept no oral communications.

But McCain added: "I emphasize that my purpose is not to suggest in any way how you should vote -- merely that you vote." And no one can doubt that the members of the commission, as they wrote on the chalk board 500 times, "I will vote before next Tuesday on two TV license applications from Paxson Communications, I will vote before next Tuesday on two TV license applications from Paxson Communications¿," had absolutely no idea how McCain (who was chairman of the Commerce Committee) might want them to vote on these applications. Indeed it is clear from this letter that McCain himself had absolutely no opinion on how the commission should vote on this issue of concern to his friend, and to the woman with whom he was creating the appearance of having an affair. McCain clearly wasn't attempting to influence the commission's vote one way or another.

More troubling, however, is the issue of whether McCain's letter may have led some people to worry that other people might conclude that McCain's letter created the appearance of a conflict of interest, as well as the issue of whether the New York Times, in digging up this eight-year-old letter, was creating the possibility that some people might think there was a possibility of an appearance that the Times was suggesting the possibility of an appearance of a potential conflict of interest in McCain's behavior, along with the most distressing possibility of all: that in this very article I may be creating the possibility that some people might worry that other people might think that I have created the appearance of suggesting that the New York Times has created the possibility that some people might worry that other people might think that McCain has created the appearance that some people might worry that other people might think that there could be an appearance that McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist.

These are the real questions that we, as a nation, face. Nobody cares whether McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist.

Michael Kinsley is a columnist for Time magazine and washingtonpost.com.

[the-dude]

Like Norm Macdonald says:
"When its about the dirty dirty sex, that gives us a chance to talk politics!"

[frizgolf]

Politicians and rivers: crooked as hell and follow the path of least resistance.

[Emperor Wog]

Politicians and rivers: crooked as hell and follow the path of least resistance.

... and are fishy.